More UKIP idiocy..

[oooo]

If i said that two people with blonde hair shouldn't be allowed to marry, you'd consider me pretty crazy. If a year later i blamed some heavy rain on the fact that two blonde people can marry you'd consider me really crazy. It's no different.

 

What annoys me is whether David Silvester is morally right or wrong, its not the point. The point is that people should be allowed the privilege to make their own judgement, and not be classed as any less right minded because of their own personal views.

[Jmack]

What annoys me is whether David Silvester is morally right or wrong, its not the point. The point is that people should be allowed the privilege to make their own judgement, and not be classed as any less right minded because of their own personal views.

 

The is a Councillor and he believes that the storms were created as a direct result of the gay marriage bill. He's insane. You cannot seriously expect me to pretend that i believe his view is anything other than stupid.

[SnailyBoy]

But you do think its right to discriminate against someone because of their beliefs.

 

Despite that we still don't allow people with certain religious beliefs to run their business in accordance to those beliefs, whilst other can run their business in accordance with their beliefs.

 

This is clearly discrimination against some people because of their beliefs, and you appear happy with it.

 

If someone has a business that is accessible to members of the public then they shouldn't discriminate in any way.

 

The link I provided earlier explains it all.

 

They can rant and rave all they like in private about disliking certain protected groups, which by the way, we all belong to in one way or another.

[boyfriday]

Damn straight - a parade of one legged blacked lesbians would have held an honour guard for them, whilst Freddy Mercury impersonators showered them in confetti made from shredded copies of the now repealed Section 28.

 

Probably.

 

I think I went to that party

[Jmack]

But you do think its right to discriminate against someone because of their beliefs.

 

Despite that we still don't allow people with certain religious beliefs to run their business in accordance to those beliefs, whilst other can run their business in accordance with their beliefs.

 

This is clearly discrimination against some people because of their beliefs, and you appear happy with it.

 

Why should religious beliefs get privilege? Also you point that some people have more rights than others is barmy.

[boyfriday]

What annoys me is whether David Silvester is morally right or wrong, its not the point. The point is that people should be allowed the privilege to make their own judgement, and not be classed as any less right minded because of their own personal views.

 

How well do you think Silvester would represent his married, gay constituents?

[Halibut]

there are some who dont mind other peoples sexualty, and some that find it unpleasant, either way, its that persons choice to feel the way they do, and not the choice of you to promote the an anti-gay outburst as wrong, and suggest that people who oppose gay marriage aren't right thinking people.

 

In exactly the same way that this silly UKIPer has the right to say that he thinks gay marriage is making it rain, I have the right to say that he's foolish to do so.

 

People who oppose gay marriage aren't right thinking.

[oooo]

How well do you think Silvester would represent his married, gay constituents?

 

Well, judging by his revelation, he would probably be just about the worst MP the gay community could have. You see BF, that is my point. Im not saying he was right, in fact I thought "Oh dear, thats him gone", but that really isnt what im getting at. My issue is being told what I should think, especially from the OP of this thread. We are all big enough to make our own decisions and right or wrong, they are ours to make.

[skinz]

The point is that people should be allowed the privilege to make their own judgement, and not be classed as any less right minded because of their own personal views.

 

And yet you go on with the following rant and personal views. To be honest I'v never read such load of ********. "Employee handbook"? "Cost of running church"? RELEVANCE???

 

It costs over £1000 million a year to run the Church of England, financing its 13,000 parishes and 43 cathedrals, so somebody thinks region is important, and the Employee Handbook of the church is The Bible, and if some bloke wants to quote from it, then he can. Its not illegal to quote from it, just like its not illegal to quote his statement as "foolishness". Its just another statement by a UKIP member, who probably should have kept it to himself, and now a forum rant from a nobody who dosent like UKIP, and thats not illegal to say either.

Religion is big business, wherever you are from, and there are some who dont mind other peoples sexualty, and some that find it unpleasant, either way, its that persons choice to feel the way they do, and not the choice of you to promote the an anti-gay outburst as wrong, and suggest that people who oppose gay marriage aren't right thinking people.

 

Of course it's everyone's right to feel the way they do about "sexuality". It's when they start spouting it in the public domain it becomes an issue, an issue that EVERYONE has the right to question..but ironically that seems to stick in your throat.

[SpikeMac]

I think its wrong that a person cant have their own beliefs without be frowned upon. If I dont like something, is it wrong to say it publicly? Yet is it OK for the person who dosent like my beliefs to say so?

Is it that simple?

 

What if I believe in the right to frown upon people who have stupid ideas?

 

Do I have that right? If so, can I frown upon them?

 

In essence, anybody who believes that natural phenomena are the acts of a vengeful god, needs good frowning upon.